China requires influencers to hold verified qualifications before speaking on medicine, law, finance, and education. The Cyberspace Administration of China formalised this to reduce misinformation and attach legal responsibility to advice that affects public welfare. Penalties include content removal, account suspension, and fines up to 100,000 yuan. Platforms must verify credentials and display proof or disclaimers. This turns regulated knowledge into a credential-driven space online rather than an open commentary arena.
The rule directly targets creators who simulate expertise by using an authoritative tone without academic or professional grounding. China views this as a structural problem in digital culture, where financial advisors without licences, fake medical experts, and legal commentators without bar certification influence behaviour at scale. The requirement forces medical advice to be given by trained doctors, financial content by licensed professionals, and educational guidance by qualified teachers. The state frames it as a protective intervention to maintain information integrity and public trust.
Opposition focuses on speech restrictions. Critics argue that enforced credentials can dilute open discourse and concentrate informational authority in state-approved channels. Some see it as an extension of political control and censorship, limiting public debate by filtering experts through government systems. Posts on international platforms criticised the move as extreme and compared it to heavy-surveillance states. Despite these reactions, Chinese regulators continue to justify the policy as a preventive mechanism against false cures, misleading financial guidance, and harmful legal misinformation.
Influencer ecosystems in China must now restructure. Analysts estimate that most creators in regulated topics lack formal qualifications and will need partnerships with certified experts to continue. Platforms like Douyin, Weibo, and Bilibili have already begun credential verification flows. Lifestyle, entertainment, and personal content remain unrestricted unless creators misrepresent themselves as authorities. Cooking, travel, gaming, and fashion streams continue unaffected unless they cross into health or scientific claims.
This shift reflects a broader trend in state-directed digital governance. China already enforces real-name registration for influencers, mandatory source citation for news commentary, and monitoring for livestreaming commerce. The new rule fits into a broader model of platform responsibility and controlled informational quality. It formalises the idea that high-impact knowledge functions like a regulated profession, not open social chatter.
India faces similar misinformation challenges. Social media penetration is high, and influencers act as informal advisors. Cases include unverified medical claims, pseudo-scientific assertions during the pandemic, and endorsements of traditional remedies without empirical support. Viral misinformation has affected public behaviour, such as panic around disease transmission and vaccine hesitation. India relies more on voluntary compliance and platform moderation rather than pre-emptive credential enforcement. The Chinese model presents a contrasting path where authority is enforced by law rather than market and platform correction.
